Do Goblins next! I think that Goblins as PCs are a much more realistic step than those crystal people in PHB3.

Hobgoblins seem like an obvious PC race choice, but the whole spectrum of goblin races (gobline, hobgoblin, bugbear, who knows what else) is interesting enough to me that they’re not just another generic savage humanoid.

Your points on more advanced creatures in 4E are very interesting. I will say I’m working on a few less-typical monstrous races for 4E, but I hadn’t considered dragon and probably won’t ever write that up (unless it was for a Council of Wyrms style game). One good thing with 4th Edition in regards to various creatures as playable races is that the average strength of playable races has been increased to balance with things like the dragonborn, drow, and tiefling rather than using ECL or another method, they simply boosted the standard races. I think this makes it even more realistic to consider various monstrous races such as the minotaur, githyanki, and others.

Back on topic, I’d like to see if there’s a way to play more advanced creatures in 4e. In previous editions there were ways to play dragons. They didn’t always work and definitely weren’t balanced. My idea on playing something this powerful would be to use the hybrid system. They get a standard package of racial bonuses and they have to take “hybrid-[species]” as one of their options. I think this would allow racial powers without being overpowering. Some of the things that we think of as racial abilities would be handled by powers. In some cases, they won’t work the way we think of them. For example, a troll wouldn’t get regeneration as a class ability. But I could see many of his powers having a healing component to them – make X attack and heal con modifier damage as an at-will. Or they might grant a small amount of damage resistance to all but fire or acid. This could be increased by racial feats or boosted by powers. It’s just an idea, but it looks to be the best way to make this work into the balanced world of 4e.

Bruce: It’s probably not that new, but I’m also not a big fan of the new alignment system because for me it has led to most of my players simply choosing “unaligned” instead of making a decision (one that some players find difficult, but can help define a character better).

I’m not sure how the changes in the alignment system push people towards good characters; there are fewer alignments now but just as many “good” as “evil”.

Players playing psychopathic amoral characters is a separate issue than what race you play. You can easily play that way using PHB races. And you can play honorable characters with monstrous races. My bugbear is honorable and hoping to become a Sentinel Marshal.

(Oh, but one tiny nit to pick – first paragraph of the physical qualities is repetitive. A quick edit can clean that up easily.)

As far as evil races, I really feel like WotC would prefer DnD to be a game of good heroes, rather than a game of choices. With the changes in the alignment system, and most of the races and quests geared towards good characters, it seems like a sort of gentle push in that direction. So I’m not surprised that they’re finding excuses to leave behind evil races for PCs.

Minotaurs have slightly done a shift in perception with WoW and the Tauren. Alot of newer players see them as a primal race and not a truly evil one.

Tom: Basic questions are perfectly fine here! The drow are still very clearly an evil race, but the racial write up is clearly (and it makes sense for it to be) geared towards playing a drow that has turned away from their people and lolth. Players in 4th Edition are probably more discouraged from playing an evil character than in older editions, but that’s probably just because of the swing towards emphasizing the “heroism” of the players. That’s not to say you can’t play an evil character, Dave’s game had an evil cleric for the first few levels (and still has some questionable ones ), but I would bet the large majority of players in 4E are playing good or neutral characters.

Kelsey: The minotaur is more of a monstrous race, whereas the drow are clearly in the villainous race category. There’s a fine line there, and it really doesn’t matter all that much, but I suppose the distinction is that you’ll find a LOT more neutral minotaurs then you will find neutral drow and slightly higher numbers when it comes to those of good alignment. Githyanki and drow can almost all be lumped into the evil category, whereas minotaurs are more of a savage-but-generally-neutral monster.

I would imagine WotC would be open to developing Githyanki as a PC race in Dragon magazine.

Excuse the really basic questions. I haven’t played 4th edition yet, though I’m really curious how it has developed. I’m an old 1st and 2nd edition player getting re-interested in D&D.

Again, excuse the basic questions. When did the Drow become good? Also, are players in 4th ed discouraged from playing evil characters?

I’ve been really enjoying the blog. Thanks!

@Bart: I like your start on building a PC Githyanki, and I can’t wait to see the Feats and the Paragon Path you come up with!
.-= Neuroglyph´s last blog ..Gearing up for PAX East =-.